309 comments:

Sixty-seven percent (67%) of military veterans agree that the protests mostly have been planned in advance

Regardless of whether you attended the NY School for Boys or the AQ Camp Number 2 training program, a dismounted attack against a walled compound is not something you do ad-hoc.

Good Armies at least run a sand table exercise to coordinate how the suppressing fire teams will control their fires and allow the assault teams to reach the wall at the breach point. Not to mention communications, logistics, rally point, chain of command, etc

To Clinton and Obama's credit: they are doing an apology tour across the Middle East because you can't ask Muslim leaders to be too far ahead of their people, and well, look where their people are.

Of course, they could just be doing this to save their own political hides, to keep their beliefs alive in not only a liberal internationalist doctrine but Obama's particular brand of it, which like everything with Obama requires a suspension of disbelief and trust in a pretty incompetent, almost narcissistic, politician.

I mean, he won a Nobel peace prize after all.

They're not coming clean because it's all still 'fluid' which means they're scrambling to save their vision, despite events. Nuland at State (I'm sure Samantha Power) and the sacrificial lamb Susan Rice are still on board.

--Younger voters are far less convinced than their elders that the protests at U.S. embassies in the Middle East have been planned in advance. Female voters are not as sure of that as male voters are.--

As the story of Bengazi seeps through the embargo that State, FBI and CIA try to place on the info, "No comment while there's an ongoing criminal investigation" BS, it is going to look more like the OBL raid in Pakistan than a demonstration against Youtube.

I predict:

1. The Ambassador's killing was the cover story.2. The real story is that an elite team of AQ Special operators (such that they have them) went in along with the assault team.3. Their target was the CIA files on assets and threats in Eastern Libya.4. They got what they came for and Obama is cooperating in the cover story cover-up, because the truth is too terrible.5. Around Libya, people friendly to us are going gto die.

It was a Morrocan function...Geez. I can't stand Zero and the Hildebeast but even I knew this. Other stuff does happen in the world, and Zero and the Hildebeast will be there to fuck it up more.

Althouse juxtaposing a satanic flag to an Islamic Kingdom(one that is nominally our friend)...Let's not forget the Satanic Verses from that great champion of free speech, Salman Rushdie, except only for him, not for bad movie producers.

When did the Gadsden Flag become a symbol of the hard Right / extremism?

I bought a Gadsden flag tshirt a few years ago. We learned about it in elementary school and I always thought it was just a cool-looking flag with a simple, honorable message: don't mess with me and I won't mess with you; respect. Not to mention it was a symbol of the revolution, which I think was a very cool time in history and political thought.

But now I'm sort of reluctant to wear it anymore. I keep hearing it mentioned along with teabaggers, town hall nutters, right-wing militias, etc.

What is coming out now is that there was no "street demonstrations" at all in Benghazi, and there is no evidence that that "al Qaeda" group even knew about the video. It was just a night-time "al Qaeda" attack planned for 9/11 and carried out with small arms, RPGs, and mortars.

It is not all that clear whether the demonstrations in Cairo was just created by a local speechifying "cleric," or was intentionally incited by the Moslem Brotherhood, or possibly Salafists out to embarrass the brotherhood, but since it was that successful and got played up big in Washington and across the West, everybody jumped on the bandwagon and promptly rustled up local demonstrations to show they to were "with it."

In a nutshell:The attackers had knowledge of the ambassador's itinerary through informants, and used small-squad tactics very effectively to complete their mission, which was to kill him.They inadvertently exposed the Obama administration's utter failure in that region.

That's the flag of BeBopIsStan, where Jay-z and Beyonce boogie at the White House and give advice on foreign policy in the situation room. Maybe the Zero can send them on an apology tour through the area to make things right. I can just hear Jay-Z call them Mo-Es in a song. I'm sure that would sooth the savage ravings in that area.

They don't have to run that ad in the United States, where the mainstream media carries their message free of charge.

In pro wrestling jargon, the fans who believe that the matches and storylines are real are called "marks." That could double as a term for people who believe what the American mainstream media reports about politics.

Clearly, Obama is the devil and he killed Ambassador Stevens! And he's just trying to blame it on the Muhammad video! It's true that the administration has said the killing was the premeditated act of terrorists. But that's just a coverup for their true position, namely that the killing was a spontaneous reaction to the Muhammad video! Don't you people see? Don't you understand? The American people understand. They know that the killing was the premeditated act of terrorists, just as the administration said. They are not fooled by the administration's nefarious secret position, which is the opposite of its public position. That's why Romney is WINNING!

The pentagram is, in the context of the Moroccan flag, the "Seal of Solomon" (by Islamic and probably pre-Islamic tradition), and linked (via assimilation of pre-Islamic belief) to Fatima, the Prophet's daughter.

What's not clear to me is that Stevens didn't make a lot of these decisions himself. He went all over the place without proper security. He was a sitting duck.He knew the Islamists were getting thick on the ground in Benghazi and points East. Libya was less dangerous than it was during Gadhafi's overthrow, but still a mess.

Our government is responsible of course, and there should be an investigation done by Congress, and not by this administration.

Why has Obama claimed the video is responsible for so long...denying so many facts on the ground?

Why was he so ready to toss the 1st amendment under the bus and let Google defend it?

I think it's because he believes, he genuinely believes, that he will "heal the divide," between the Muslim world and the West. Libya was his war (like the surge in Afghanistan), and it's stage one in the New Liberal World Order, hence the apology tour. This was all PR to protect that vision and get the Muslim world to banish its "extremists" and bring Muslims in to the raft of rights and "community of nations."

That is a few ticks leftward of perhaps all previous administrations.

Like domestic policy, perhaps Obama can't even see Westpoint at times from where he sits, nor many white males, nor conservatives, nor many other people and ideas traditions that make this country what it is.

If this approach fails, it will be everyone else's fault, the political opposition, the extremists, but never the ideas, and never Obama's, for they float in the ether, still shining.

MichaelI was just noting the commonality between the obvious hatred that both groups seem have toward Obama. The flag burning, the burning effigies of Obama, the chanting, the yelling and screaming and whatnot.

As Blackfoot once famously said "Those that lie down with dogs, get up with fleas."

Garage: The people in the streets in the ME and NA hate America which includes Obama and you and me. If you were to make any comparisons with US political parties and the people in the streets in Libya you would be closer to the mark if you chose Democrats.

I think it's worth pointing out that recently in Benghazi - where Ambassador Christopher died - citizens stormed the militant's headquarters and forced them out of the city.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19680785

Up to 30,000 people also protested that militia. Yes, they were protesting against the militia itself.

This has direct bearing on part of the topic: What young voters believe. Too many of them are being overly simplistic and not paying attention to the details. Heavy weaponry was eventually deployed at the first "protest", indicating that the militia was indeed prepared for the event. But that's not the same as criticizing the Benghazi or Muslims themselves; that's merely stating a logical conclusion to draw from the details of the event.

It is not attacking Islam to criticize the radicals. People who propagate that line of thought are foolish. It's entirely reasonable to strongly suspect that the event was preplanned, and it's far from being an indictment of Islam itself. It's no more than pointing out that there are fanatics out there who hide behind their religion in order to commit murder. 30,000 people in Benghazi give support to the notion that there are others within the Muslim world who'd like nothing better than to see those radical murders be driven out.

---

As an aside: Whereas everything's going to hell in a handbasket in Egypt, I think it's reasonable to take heart in what Libya's citizens are doing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18895335.

There's a possibility that Salafist ursurpation of popular revolutions can fail in Libya (as opposed to the success they're achieving in Egypt). That would be welcome news indeed. The world has had enough Irans and Lebanons already.

"Ten days after the event. Once they realized their bullshit hadn't convinced anyone."

Actually, the administration said from the beginning that they suspected it was planned and began investigating it immediately. But feel free to make stuff up. http://www.npr.org/2012/09/13/161044872/u-s-probes-whether-libyan-attacks-were-planned

The flag burning, the burning effigies of Obama, the chanting, the yelling and screaming and whatnot.

----Yeah, 12+ years of little bitches like you doing the same to effigies of Bush, burning American flags, chanting how he was a war criminal, yelling, screaming, and shitting on cars and raping women.

Hypocrite piece of shit liar, you are.

By the way, heard you're daughter's sick. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving man.

Like domestic policy, this means Obama is not just cut from the Clinton cloth, the Johnson Great Society cloth, the FDR New Deal cloth etc (to whom he compares himself constantly and pathetically), he may be even further left in some of his sympathies.

He's a community organizer, a redistributionist, in bed with the real, sometimes radical Lefties and Marxists hanging around from the 60's, rewarding the Flukes, the enviro-nuts (not conservationists), the unions, the old Civil Rights apparatus in a system of patronage.

Hyde Park liberal and political moderate tempered by Harvard Law don't quite cut it. Progressive might get closer, but of the 60's variety.

The flag burning, the burning effigies of Obama, the chanting, the yelling and screaming and whatnot.

This has never happened in the US.

No one despises Obama. We despise his miserable performance as President.

Not the same thing, although I can understand if you lack the brainpower to distinguish the difference.

Your side, on the other hand, loves both Obama and his miserable performance as President.

And does drum circles, effigies, puppets, chanting, burning of US flags, inability to disagree with someone's policies without loathing them, etc. So I can see where your constant projection of your attitudes/techniques to the other side would leave you confused.

Both the Obama camp and the right wing cling to falsehoods and suppression of investigation tactics.

1. The Obama camp tried to blame the Benghazi attack on the blasphemy film - ignoring the long planning, 9/11 anniversary, and local reports that it was a armed disciplined force hitting the US targets(not street rabble that had gone to protest and somehow 'gotten out of hand').The coverup of course is the stonewalling all comment (until perhaps after the election) because it would jeopardize the ongoing civilian criminal investigation. By the FBI, which ordered the Marines and Navy to stay away from Banghazi as it was a FBI operation ordered by the White House. That took a week to arrive and reach "the crime scene".

2. The rightwingers jumped on the fact that the Ambassdors killing was not linked to the film to then blow off riots and attacks on American interests from Morocco over to Indonesia that clearly HAD sprung from the film.Their coverup is to try and wrap themselves and the filmaker con artist in the 1st Amendment. And shout Freedom! 1st Amendment Rights! - to anyone that wants to know if the blasphemy film and present US policies jeopardize us. Our ability to promote American national security or have influence on matters of vital interest to America in 1/3rd of the globe.

Actually, the administration said from the beginning that they suspected it was planned and began investigating it immediately.

Nope. Your link doesn't say what you claim it says. It only says (that the admin said) they were "probing" whether the attack was planned; Carney says it's "too early to judge whether the Benghazi attack was planned."

But Susan Rice, days after the attacks, made the MSM rounds on behalf of the administration and asserted-- insisted-- they were spontaneous protests that got out of hand, not planned terrorist attacks. See, for example, videos and links here.

“This was not a pre-planned, pre-meditated attack,” she said on Fox News Sunday. “What happened initially was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent. People with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons—which, unfortunately, are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya—and that then spun out of control.”

President Obama declared in a White House appearance that the U.S. would "work with the Libyan government to bring to justice" those who killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The attack on the Benghazi consulate was "a planned, coordinated, well-executed, military-style event," House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers said.

Note well, nothing from Obama about a well-planned terrorist attack. That had to come from Mike Rogers, a Republican. Instead we get this:

White House press secretary Jay Carney said it was too early to judge whether the Benghazi attack was planned.

It was impossible to judge what the rest of the world already knew.

I appreciate the help, AF, but for your own sake read the articles you link to before posting them.

The Obamites failed to show the strength needed initially, particularly in Egypt. Then failed to use military assets and CIA and Libyans to rapidly investigate this and take action - deferring to a plodding FBI civilian criminal investigation..

The right wing failed to understand that we are at war, and they cheer those like the Copt crook - who are giving the enemy propaganda ammunition to use against us.

The best logic they can come up with is its the right thing to do because it sure pisses the Muslims off.

Libya is Obama's war: Light footprint, help overthrow Gadhafi with our special forces and mostly our bombs, go with British and French support and all the nods to international institutions, get rid of the tyrant (but unlike Bush, don't invade). Follow Frenchman Bernhard Henri Levy! to freedom through revolution.

The result will attract Al Qaeda and affiliates, but the people ultimately are responsbile for themselves and their destiny. Let them sort it out, but encourage when you can.

Some Libyans actually riot to take back Benghazi from Ansar Al Sharia and other thugs. It's a baby step to freedom.

Is this a win for obama's foreign policy?

Is getting the Muslim world, by slow and steady degrees, to join international institutions however ineffectual, a better path than long occupation like AfPak or invasion and rebuilding like Iraq?

The problem may be that most Muslims, as most conservatives note, aren't 'ready' for the sacrifice and commitment to democratic institutions that representative government require. It's unreformed Islam itself...or it isn't. It's not our business, but if some are willing to kill us over here. Then we kill them first.------------------

Americans, in turn, aren't ready for the light that Obama is bringing them. Facts about Stevens' death, security, 1st amendment rights etc. take a back seat to cultivating the garden of liberal international freedom and a raft of rights.

"The Obama administration, roiled by the first killing of a U.S. ambassador in more than 30 years, is investigating whether the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a planned terrorist strike to mark the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and not a spontaneous mob enraged over an anti-Islam YouTube video."

However, that does not contradict what's commonly known and cited in the news: That the administration did indeed say that the attacks were spontaneous, and not premeditated. Those statements are on record (I am specifically referring to Rice's, Carney's, and Clinton's).

If the administration did believe from the beginning that the attacks were premeditated, then they did not reflect that in their statements to the public. So you are not correct in saying that the administration was actually saying this "from the beginning". On the contrary, they may have started an investigation along these lines in the beginning (although my understanding is that the investigation was merely to identify the perpetrators, not actually discover whether it was premeditated or not. I could be wrong, however), but they proceeded to characterize the attacks as spontaneous in the days following. Rice's and Carey's statements, for example, were in the news 3 days after the date of your linked article. Tyrone is still correct in saying that the administration only admitted that the attacks were not spontaneous well after they were pressured to.

Furthermore, we still need to see substantiation of the NPR/AP article's claim. None was provided within the article. On the contrary, the relevant quotes regarding premeditation come from congressional staff members (and Republicans to boot), not administration ones. In fact, the only administration spokesperson quoted provided a sentence that might contradict the claim ("White House press secretary Jay Carney said it was too early to judge whether the Benghazi attack was planned.

"I know that this is being investigated, and we're working with the Libyan government to investigate the incident. I would not want to speculate on that at this time," he said.").

In the end, there was nothing incorrect or inaccurate about Tyrone's statement. Yours, however, is not in line with the evidence provided. They were not saying what you assert they said "from the beginning".

"Zero thinks the deaths of Stevens and the 2 former SEALs are a "bump in the road".

Israel's concerns about a nuclear Iran are "noise"."-----

Obama also thinks that principled objection to obamacare, redistribution of wealth and transfer payments to potential consituents, a smaller government that preserves economic and political liberty....

Tyrone and yashu: You'll note the immediate investigation, which obviously is based on suspicion and directly contradicts your suggestion that the White House's initial response was to attribute the attack to spontaneous protesters.

Ambassador Rice's statements were made several days later, after the initial investigation, and were based on the preliminary results of the investigation. The preliminary conclusion was that people with "extremist ties" -- ie terrorists -- were responsible but that they hadn't found any evidence of premeditation. So again, they are not saying the attacks were a spontaneous protests. They are saying they were an opportunistic terrorist attack.

Facts about Stevens' death, security, 1st amendment rights etc. take a back seat to cultivating the garden of liberal international freedom and a raft of rights.

Rather convoluted thinking there. Yes, facts matter and 1st amendment rights matter. What the fuck is a "garden of liberal international rights" and a "raft of rights?" How does stomping on the 1st amendment bring about a "raft of rights." Or, are you being facetious?

The flag burning, the burning effigies of Obama, the chanting, the yelling and screaming and whatnot.

----Yeah, 12+ years of little bitches like you doing the same to effigies of Bush, burning American flags, chanting how he was a war criminal, yelling, screaming, and shitting on cars and raping women.

Hypocrite piece of shit liar, you are.

By the way, heard you're daughter's sick. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving man."

9/24/12 12:54 PM

Whore, what a pig fucker you are, that is when you're not fucking goats.

chrisnavim wrote:Obama also thinks that principled objection to obamacare, redistribution of wealth and transfer payments to potential consituents, a smaller government that preserves economic and political liberty....

Being facetious, but also trying to understand where the administration is coming from.

Here's a definition from Anne Marie Slaughter on liberal internationalism, which I suspect is acutally GROUNDING Obama:

‘The central liberal internationalist premise is the value of a rules-based international order that restrains powerful states and thereby reassures their enemies and allies alike and allows weaker states to have sufficient voice in the system that they will not choose to exit’-----------------

Idea wise, this is why the administration's actions are to wait so long to admit it was a planned attack..why Clinton is doing a Muslim world apology tour..to have a couple of week long investigation...to trot out Nakoula and let Google handle the video...to cover its own ass.

These ideas were swept into power 3 1/2 years ago and they don't want to see them go.

We're just seeing their playbook not work so well in the game. It won't ever be their fault, because the playbook is the right one, and it wasn't given enough time.

Tyrone and yashu: You'll note the immediate investigation, which obviously is based on suspicion and directly contradicts your suggestion that the White House's initial response was to attribute the attack to spontaneous protesters.

Ambassador Rice's statements were made several days later, after the initial investigation, and were based on the preliminary results of the investigation. The preliminary conclusion was that people with "extremist ties" -- ie terrorists -- were responsible but that they hadn't found any evidence of premeditation. So again, they are not saying the attacks were a spontaneous protests. They are saying they were an opportunistic terrorist attack.

On 16 Sep, Susan Rice represented the Obama Administration in saying the attacks in Libya were not premeditated.

So even if the administration was initially unsure if it was a premeditated attack or not, it lied to the public and said it definitely, absolutely, beyond a doubt was not premeditated.

Not knowing for sure is one kind of problem, and all your excuses for those difficulties are noted.

But deliberately lying to the US public about it is wrong. There are a few possible reasons to lie:- not considering US citizens to be adult enough to handle the truth- domestic political calculations- more concern for Islamic concerns than US citizenry concerns- not wanting public opinion to push Administration toward a reaction they didn't want to take (deliberate attempt to forestall Will of the People)

None of those possibilities look good for President Obama.

There may be other possibilities, and I'd like to hear them if anyone can think of any.

But I doubt they make President Obama look any better.

He needs to resign, immediately, for betraying the Ambassador to his death, for his lies and deceptions to the American people, and for trying to cover up the deaths that occurred as a direct result of his lack of responsibility and leadership (skipping daily intel briefings leading up to the attack, going to sleep after being notified of the attack, and knowing the Ambassador was missing, etc).

Garage mahal wrote:I was just noting the commonality between the obvious hatred that both groups seem have toward Obama. The flag burning, the burning effigies of Obama, the chanting, the yelling and screaming and whatnot.

As Blackfoot once famously said "Those that lie down with dogs, get up with fleas."

Whoresoftheinterenet certainly overstated it (and needlessly brought your famly into it), but his point is fundamentally sound. You want to talk about AMericans burning a president in effigy? All you have to do is go to any pictures of an anti war demonstration. Whoever was selling Bush dolls to burn in effigy is probably a rich man. So, are you and your side feeling the itch from all that lying down with dogs and getting up with fleas?

@Cedarford,I'm a right winger, and I understand we are at war, at least as much as you do.

I also realize that one of the things we are at war over, is freedom. Freedom of religion, freedom of association, Rule of Law, freedom of speech, freedom of expression...all are things we have that they don't want us to have. All are things that Muslims intend to eradicate once everyone is subject to the worldwide Caliphate.

So when you are in a war, you don't just pre-emptively surrender one of the things you are fighting with and for, do you?

You don't say, "Hm... they keep trying to shoot down our bombers. So if we just destroy all our bombers now on our home territory, maybe they won't try to shoot down our transport or fighter aircraft!"

So, no. We don't modify our commitment to free speech. If that makes the Muslims riot, that is just them self-identifying as enemy combatants. Saves us the trouble of having to pick them out of a crowd, right?

He needs to be outed, commenters here need to know what sort of beast they are dealing with, since this is a conservative site and he is a far right wing extremist. OWN him or reject him, some here on this blog have actually agreed with him.

Note now that Inga the Obama Whore is demanding I be SHAMED in the light of day for being a dick. I must be ARRESTED and frog marched and embarrassed and punished for daring to oppose her and her ideals.

She also had NO problem with the Feds ARRESTING a man for making a movie and SHAMING him.

Coincidence? I think not.

All opposition to the party must be rooted out and destroyed, comrades! 1st Amendment be damned!

the ObamaAdmin said "Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present"

If that was actually the Obama administration's "best assessment" that doesn't speak well to the Obama administration's ability to assess.

Seriously, now -- they had information the attacks were coming. Then the attacks actually happened. If "huh, must have been a spontaneous, multi-nation reaction to a YouTube video nobody had ever heard of before" was really their "best assessment", they're morons.

"They lied" seems like a much more credible explanation than "they are dumber than three-quarters of the American public".

@PP,Couldn't help but notice that none of the reasons you listed include "National Security." Why is that?

I ain't sayin' that this is the case in this case, but rather just askin' if you really beleive that Big Bro should always tell the truth, no matter what.

You'll have to explain how lying to the public about what happened is in the interests of national security.

In the US, the only govt things that are supposed to be kept from the public are involved with protecting the ways and means of intelligence collection, security of nuclear weapons, and the general right to anonymity to the govt (unless there is probable cause).

The govt is not supposed to "protect" us from the truth. The govt is the servant of the people, not the master.

If the people make stupid decisions, with the information, that is the right of the people.

It is telling that you think lying to the public for its own good is one possible function of the govt. Tyranny "for their own good" is never far from the mind of a Progressive, eh?

I also noticed that the ObamaAdmin said "Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present" and you interpreted that to mean "definitely, absolutely, beyond a doubt"

That was the implication. Regardless of whether you add weasel words, the purpose of the statement was to pin blame for the riots on the video, and to ensure no one blamed President Obama for his lack of leadership or willful disregard of the actual terrorist threat on the 11th anniversary of 9/11.

Weasel words were added for plausible deniability. But the intent was to leave the impression in low-information voters minds that there was no question the attack was a spontaneous reaction to the video, and not a pre-planned attack that reflected badly on Obama's preoccupation with his re-election campaign.

In fact, the weasel words merely increase the evidence that she was knowingly lying on behalf of a deliberately deceptive Obama Administration.

PurpleP. The president could hqve many legitimate reasons for telling an untruth. A good time to do this would not be when the truth is too evident to shove under the rug as was the case in Libya. Only the dumbest of the dumb believe an operation as was reported could be "spontaneous" and no amout of double talk can obscure that.

PurpleP. The president could hqve many legitimate reasons for telling an untruth. A good time to do this would not be when the truth is too evident to shove under the rug as was the case in Libya. Only the dumbest of the dumb believe an operation as was reported could be "spontaneous" and no amout of double talk can obscure that.

So do you beleive that the President should always tell the truth, no matter what? Even if his generals are telling him not to?

I believe Obama lied about why our embassies were attacked.

I you want to change your argument from "they thought the embassies were attacked because of that movie" to "yes, he lied, but he lied for important strategic reasons" feel free to do so. After you have, I'll direct the appropriate level of mockery at that claim.

I ain't sayin' that is the case in this case...just wondering where people stand on this.

You'll have to explain how lying to the public about what happened is in the interests of national security

Nope...no need to go there at all if you beleive that "national security" isn't a reasonable excuse to for Uncle Sam to not tell the truth about something.

And based on the rest of your response, you make it very clear that the gov't shouldn't lie at all, unless it involves nuclear weapons and intel-collection. In all other matters you expect full and total disclosure from the Feds, no matter what the implications to national security.

Thanks for clearing that up...mucho appericated.

That was the implication.

You are really gonna plant a flag on your claim that saying "Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present" means "definitely, absolutely, beyond a doubt"?!

Of course they were lying, why sent out the UN ambassador to appear on all the talk shows? Why not someone actually from the White House or State? Isn't that the normal way these things are done?They sent Ambassador Rice out to lie and to cover Barry's and Hillary's asses, they both knew about the attack within 90 minutes of the attack started, they went to bed without knowing the status of Stevens. Barry and Hillary got their 3:00 AM calls and failed to answer. Besides, Barry had to rest up for Vegas.Anyone with an IQ above 80 and an internet connection knew why Stevens was in Benghazi,who he was meeting and what one of those people had to say about the situation.

I'm sure the playbook (disseminated via one of the many incarnations of Journolist) is something like this:

1) never respond directly to the point2) ask lots of hypothetical questions that are superficially similar to the topic at hand3) Words almost always have multiple meanings; parse them in the best possible light for Obama/Democrats, the worst possible light for GOP/Republicans4) never grant a single point; question every single thing a non-liberal says...if they answer one point effectively, don't acknowledge, but shift to the next question.5) Question motivations of those who criticize Obama/Democrats. 6) Always provide an innocuous possible explanation of Obama's intent. Repeat it as if it were an already proven fact7) Never underestimate the power of ridiculing a typo (never acknowledge bad grammar/vocab/spelling on your own part)7) Overall, the goal of the progressive/liberal Althouse Troll is to undermine key supports on any topic that might hurt Obama in the election. Cast doubt. Cast aspersions. Nothing is ever truly known 100%, so use that inherent 0.0001% uncertainty against them. Their inherent honesty, integrity, and desire to argue in good faith can be turned against them, since you lack those 3 attributes almost completely.

And based on the rest of your response, you make it very clear that the gov't shouldn't lie at all, unless it involves nuclear weapons and intel-collection. In all other matters you expect full and total disclosure from the Feds, no matter what the implications to national security.

See?

He refuses to put his own opinion out for critique, but misrepresents mine by restating it in own words, in far more absolutist terms. I'm sure he will accuse me of lying or being a hypocrite if I ever deviate from how he characterizes my viewpoint.

BULLSHIT, Revenant, it is a conservative site, what alternate reality do you live in? What is the percentage of posts with liberal or even independent views as compared to conservative oriented posts? What is the percentage of liberal commenters to conservative?

Alex, most of my liberal friends think I'm nuts for coming here to comment. I don't want to say what they call this blog. I don't agree with them, I quite enjoy it. How many of you hang out at liberal sites? Very few I suspect.

Inga shreiked...BULLSHIT, Revenant, it is a conservative site, what alternate reality do you live in? What is the percentage of posts with liberal or even independent views as compared to conservative oriented posts? What is the percentage of liberal commenters to conservative?

Liberals have equal opportunity to post here. What you want is equal outcomes...equal numbers of liberal and conservative posters.

Revenant, you can fool yourself some of the time, but you can't fool yourself (or anyone else) all of the time.

Inga, you can make a fool of yourself most of the time, but you don't fool me any of the time. :)

Seriously, though, if you don't like it here you can always leave. It isn't like you contribute anything. We already have a few resident national-socialist types like Cedarford ready to advocate for censorship and conscription; we don't need you. :)

Nice meltdown there Nath. Your response is far more insightful than I think you intended it to be.

Sounds like you got a lot of things bothering you, so I'll be kind and address 'em all...

never respond directly to the point

Two points of your post were 1) It is never right for the WhiteHouse to lie & 2) That the ObamaAdmin said definitely, absolutely, beyond a doubt the attacks were not premeditated.

I responded directly to both those points.

You also said that you'd like to hear if anyone can think of any other possibilities for why the ObamaAdmin may have lied in the situation, and so I did exactly that.

What other point(s) do you wish to hear my feedback about?

ask lots of hypothetical questions that are superficially similar to the topic at hand

A lot? I asked one hypothetical question, and it was directly related to the topic at hand.

Your post, however, listed several hypothetical situations for why the President might lie about this..and you asked for suggestions of what other reasons may be.

Words almost always have multiple meanings; parse them in the best possible light for Obama/Democrats, the worst possible light for GOP/Republicans

Where did I say anything bad about GOP/Republicans?!

Obviously you're just rantin' for the sake of rantin'.

never grant a single point; question every single thing a non-liberal says...if they answer one point effectively, don't acknowledge, but shift to the next question.

I didn't question everything you said and I didn't shift to "the next question" at all. Rather I simply thanked you for your response on one of the points, then rolled my eyes at your response to the other, and left it at that.

What exactly is this "next question" that you think I shifted to?

Question motivations of those who criticize Obama/Democrats

Not only did I not criticize your motivations, I didn't even criticize your criticism of Obama.

Always provide an innocuous possible explanation of Obama's intent. Repeat it as if it were an already proven fact

*sigh*

When you asked for other possibilities of why the White House might lie, you really should have made it clear that you only wanted explanations that make Obama look bad.

Never underestimate the power of ridiculing a typo (never acknowledge bad grammar/vocab/spelling on your own part)

This one make the least sense of all. I've looked up&down this thread several times, and truly don't have any idea at all why you'd accuse me of this.

Does anybody else have any idea what Nath is talking about, or is he just throwing crap for the sake of throwing crap?

Overall, the goal of the progressive/liberal Althouse Troll is to undermine key supports on any topic that might hurt Obama in the election

This is also outlandish, given the number of times I've clearly said I don't support Obama and have no intentions what-so-ever of voting for him.

Chickelit, I don't EXPECT this blog to be anything OTHER than what it is, I like it just the way it is. I am merely stating it IS a conservative blog. Why do you IMMEDIATLY say I want it to be equally liberal as conservative? Are you a mind reader now?

Inga: It is interesting that you bring up left leaning or progressive blogs. I read them but the comment sections are simply drivel. If you can point me to one that has interesting banter and thoughtful posts on the topics at hand I would appreciate it.

I think you can very easily see that the opinions on this blog are very varied, much more so than those on the lefty sites I have read: where for the most part the comments are simply snark and clever one liners. Lefties do not much debate within their own ranks which is the reason you spend time here.

Most conservatives have at one point been liberals and thus are well aware of what the arguments for progressivism are and where their many holes lie. It is rare to see a liberal who was once a conservative: they exist, but are rare.

Revenant, you didn't hear what I said at least TWICE, I said I like it here, I have no intention of leaving, why should I? I think this blog needs It's few liberals, wouldn't it be boring without us? As I said, y'all like echo chambers, I guess, or at least you do Rev.

Inga: It is interesting that you bring up left leaning or progressive blogs. I read them but the comment sections are simply drivel. If you can point me to one that has interesting banter and thoughtful posts on the topics at hand I would appreciate it.

Exactly. The left-wing and right-wing blogs are usually kept ideologically pure through censorship and selective banning. Althouse doesn't do that; you can encounter people with a wide range of views here.

Inga: A further point on this blog versus those I have read on the left. Here we find ex military, bankers, small business owners,lawyers, sales people, doctors, printing press operators, academics, pizza delivery men, retirees, a very diverse group of people involved in the real world. I would very much doubt you can find this "normal" a cohort anywhere on the internets.

Purple P; Who is doing the lying to them? What would you characterize as being conservative about this blog if you did not venture into the comments section? I often see liberal causes being advertised on conservative blogs (more political than this blot), what then does that mean? Who might be lying to whom there? You are aware that many ads are generated by the sites you might have been viewing prior to the site you are on at a particular moment?

Our hostess has many POVs- some liberal; some conservative. Sometimes she seems to have a broken political compass that spins in circles.

The fact that she attracts primarily conservative and independent commenters is a testament to the fact that they are more tolerant and receptive to a variety of political viewpoints than leftists. It is to your credit, and other lefty commenters, that you come here. Most lefties could not take it.

Which, itself, is play #7b(typo, should have changed that one to #8), cast aspersions.

Please note: the govt should not lie to the citizens.

The govt is the employee/servant.

Withholding certain information is different. There are competitive advantages with other nations to be considered, and not everyone needs to know everything on demand.

But that is different than lying.

And to be clear: "lying" is only "deliberate deception". That excludes most of what liberal progressives consider lying, i.e., truths that hurt the liberal-progressive cause. Nor does it include things that are thought to be true, but later turn out to be mistaken.

So, PP, since you have me down as saying that the govt should not lie to its citizens, even when unnamed "generals" want it to, you are going on record that the US govt should lie to citizens?

Alex is trying to squelch my freedom of speech, he is embracing his fascist side now. ----lol. Two points on Inga:

1. She admits that Obama's attempts to squelch freedom of speech were fascist and wrong.

2. She is a hypocritical slut. She's all for squelching freedom of speech when her One True Hero, Mein Obama, is embarrassed by it, but hates wthe idea of any leftist drivel playing by the same rules. In other words, lefties don't have to play be the rules.

---Alex, most of my liberal friends think I'm nuts for coming here to comment. I don't want to say what they call this blog. I don't agree with them, I quite enjoy it. How many of you hang out at liberal sites? Very few I suspect.

Many conservative commenters here, unlike me, LIKE echo chambers---

Why do we need to hang out at liberal sites? All we have to do is turn on the TV or pick up/log on a newspaper.

Seeing Red, you don't, I didn't say I expected you to. I do however think y'all should appreciate us liberals for coming here in the first place and then having the guts to stay at this conservative echo chamber.

. I do however think y'all should appreciate us liberals for coming here in the first place and then having the guts to stay at this conservative echo chamber.It's we liberals that drown out that echo a wee bit.

---LMAO. So Inga the Obama Whore, an amazingly transparent hypocrite, who hates freedom of speech if it hurts the left, dictates to us all that we should BOW DOWN AND WORSHIP her fascism, as she is a LIGHT BRINGER to all us IDIOT NON-LEFTISTS who dare question the Affirmative Action President, black dysfunction, and Mein Obama's destroying of freedom of speech.

I hope your daughter is defending the next damn embassy that's stormed---and told by Mein Obama that defending herself/loading her gun is "racist" and "an attack on religion" and has to stand there, defenseless while the hordes that Mein Obama created attack her.

Whore, I predict you will die a horrible death one day and deservedly so.

First you say Garage deserves a sick child, now for the second time you have said you wish my military daughter to be murdered by Islamist terrorists. The first time you said it it was deleted by Althouse or Meade, let's see if it gets deleted a second time.

I never said that was the reason, rather I was responding to your request to hear if anyone can think of any possibilities for why the White House might have lied about this.

However, having served in two different branches of the military I can think of a couple reasons why we'd want our enemy to think their fake-out was still fooling us.

Again, I ain't saying that this is what happened, rather am just responding to your request for other possibilities for why the C-in-C might lie to the public.

if you don't explain your position, that's tacit admission you are not here in good faith

Is that why you're not explaining why you accused me of ridiculing others for typos? And why you're not clarifying what you meant when you say I put things in the worst possible light for GOP/Republicans?

Inga, I like that name. I've been lurking for years, this blog has become right leaning, especially since the left's failure in the Wisconsin recall. I believe all the lefties are in counselling and not available to post. I've always found this blog slightly left of center over the years, but I think Barry's "chickens have come home to roost" and has finally pissed off even the moderates.